4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Ljubljana.
5.  On 29 July 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court against the State claiming non-pecuniary damages inflicted on her by involuntary confinements in the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital in December 1999 and between July and September 2000.
6.  At the first hearing held on 3 May 2005 the applicant lodged a request to delegate territorial jurisdiction to another court.
7.  On 24 June 2005 the Supreme Court upheld her request and delegated jurisdiction to the Kranj District Court.
8.  On 16 March 2006 the Kranj District Court held the first main hearing.
9.  On 26 March 2006 the applicant lodged a request with the Kranj District Court a motion to have the presiding judge excluded.
10.  On 5 May 2006 the Vice-President of the District Court upheld the applicant’s request.
11.  Between August 2006 and March 2008 the court held further four hearings.
12.  On 12 May 2007 the applicant lodged a second request to have the then presiding judge excluded and a request to transfer the case to another court with the subject-matter jurisdiction.
13.  On 31 May 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request to transfer the case to another court.
14.  On 28 September 2007 the President of the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the exclusion of the presiding judge.
15.  On 18 March 2008 the applicant lodged a request to have the president of the District Court and the presiding judge excluded.
16.  On 9 April 2008 the President of the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s request to have the President of the Kranj District Court excluded.
17.  On 21 April 2008 the President of the Kranj District Court dismissed the applicant’s request to have the presiding judge excluded.
18.  In the meantime, on 5 April 2008, the Kranj District Court imposed a fine of 500 euros (EUR) on the applicant for abuse of her procedural rights by having lodged the requests concerning the exclusion of the presiding judge. The applicant appealed.
19.  On 5 November 2008 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and annulled the order to fine the applicant. The court held that the district court failed to establish that by lodging the requests the applicant had abused her procedural rights.
20.  On 16 September 2009 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal. On 6 October 2009 the President of the Kranj District Court replied that a hearing would be scheduled for 22 October 2009.
21.  A further hearing was held on 22 February 2010.
22.  On 9 March 2011 the Kranj District Court issued a judgment in which it upheld the applicant’s claim in part. Both parties appealed.
23.  On 18 January 2012 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeals, quashed the judgment of the lower court and modified it by dismissing the claim in respect of the confinement in December 1999 as time-barred and decided that the claim for non-pecuniary damages in respect of the confinement between July and September 2000 was well-founded but that the first instance court needed to decide on the amount of compensation in a new set of proceedings.
24.  The applicant lodged a motion for leave to file an appeal on points of law in respect of the question whether her claim for damages due to the December 1999 confinement was time-barred.
25.  On 19 July 2012 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
26.  On 31 January 2013 the Supreme Court granted the applicant’s appeal on points of law and quashed the respective part of the decision of the higher court.
27.  On 13 March 2013 the Ljubljana Higher Court quashed the decision of the district court in respect of the 1999 confinement and remitted the case back to the district court.
28.  On 30 January 2014 the applicant lodged a further supervisory appeal which was dismissed on 14 February 2014.
29.  On 10 February 2014 the Kranj District Court held the first main hearing after the remittal and postponed the hearing for an indefinite period in order to obtain an expert opinion on the applicant’s mental health at the time of the confinement.
30.  On 14 March 2014 the applicant lodged a motion for a deadline with the Ljubljana Higher Court.
31.  On 25 March 2014 the Ljubljana Higher Court granted the applicant’s motion for a deadline and ordered the district court to deal with the case with priority.
32.  The proceedings are still pending before the Kranj District Court which still needs to decide on the applicant’s claim in respect of the confinement in 1999 and on the amount of compensation in respect of the 2000 confinement.
33.  On 24 March 2006 the applicant amended her claim in the above proceedings by claiming further non-pecuniary damages due to the length of proceedings. This part of the claim was separated from the main claim and referred to the Ljubljana District Court.
34.  On 18 March 2009 the applicant raised the claim to EUR 5,000.
35.  On 21 May 2009 the Ljubljana District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as premature since the main proceedings were still pending. The applicant appealed.
36.  On 20 January 2010 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged a motion to file an appeal on points of law.
37.  On 30 September 2010 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law in respect of the question whether it was possible to claim compensation for a violation of one’s right to a trial without undue delay before the termination of the main proceedings.
38.  On 27 September 2012 the Supreme Court held that even though the proceedings had been instituted before 1 January 2007 when the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) became operational, the latter was applicable to the applicant’s case and therefore it was not possible to claim compensation before the termination of the main proceedings. It further held that since the appeal on points of law was explicitly excluded as a legal remedy in the proceeding under the 2006 Act, the applicant’s appeal on points of law should be rejected on procedural grounds as not allowed. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.
39.  On 27 December 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint by reference to Section 55.b of the Constitutional Court Act.